Khaled Omar wrote: >> This is not viable because the amount of time and effort required to > make "omar-ipv10" work at all would be better spent on making ipv6 work > better. > > IPv6 took enough time for its deployment and the result is no full > migration occured anf what RIRs are trying to do now is to make IPv4 > only to be dual stack, IPv10 is in the hands of technology companies. "IPv10" does not exist, so it is not "is in the hands of technology companies". Also, the RIRs are internet number registries, so it's not their job to cause people to move from ipv4-only to dual stack. The IETF works on the basis of "rough consensus and running code". No-one has come forward to say that "ipv10" is a good idea, and there's no running code. Your drafts are unlikely to progress unless this changes. >> KRP seems to require hierarchical routing, and hierarchical routing is > not how the internet works. > > KRP is only an organized way of the Internet routers, and routing is > based on the stored information (region number and ASN) in the IP > itself, there is no hierarchical routing If you are routing on the basis of "region number", then this is hierarchical routing, by definition. The IETF spent a good deal of time looking at hierarchical routing about 20 years ago. At the time, it was realised that any attempt to deploy hierarchical routing on an internet would fail. There's probably plenty of discussion on various ietf mailing lists from the late 1990s about this. You should read through the ietf mailing list archives to see why hierarchical routing is unworkable. Nick